Should Muslim Countries take more responsibility for migrants?

A Primal Nut

I was reading this article about a Palestinian migrant :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-just-want-to-be-human-teenage-boy-tells-story-of-desperate-migrant-boat-journey-to-italy-10189052.html

This quote stood out for me:

And as Palestinians we don’t have legal rights in any Arab countries but we think we will be able to have a future in Europe

This seems to explain why asylum seekers don't try to stay in Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, the rich gulf countries espite the fact they would be easier to get to. There are refugee camps on the Syrian border with Turkey but they don't get any further than there. These countries say they support Palestinians but when given a choice Palestinians prefer Europe.

Should the EU put more pressure on these countries to accept migrants. And try to come to a deal? It seems unfair Europe is getting blamed when the real culprits are many middle eastern countries.

wes

A lot of these countries have been flooded with refugees. For example there are something like half a million Syrian refugees in Jordan. There are apparently 1 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. Pakistan has 1.5 million Afghan refugees for example.

The notion that these countries don't have a lot refugees already is rather absurd. The vast majority tend to end up in neighboring countries, that in a lot of cases can't handle the influx, which leads to poverty.

Now, do these countries need to do more to help these people, yes they very much need to do this. However, they will need help, as the numbers involved are staggering. The simple fact is that for a lot of these countries its actually in there best interest if refugees decided to go elsewhere, as they are already hosting a huge number.

**EDIT**
In regards to responsibility, how many refugees did the US and UK take in during there invasion of Iraq? The figure was tiny, compared to neighboring countries.
**END EDIT**

Nodin

And one might note that at the current time, Jordans population is majority Palestinian refugees and has been for many years.

There were over 2 million Iraqis alone in Syria at one stage during the second Iraq war afair. Now Syria is no longer a safe destination, the numbers trying to reach Europe will increase.

There may be Arab states that could do more, but certainly many have already taken in huge numbers.

jank

Interesting view and somewhat valid points as well. I suppose Europe and the west has a history of people from the outside coming in and becoming part of the community and full citizens of their newly adopted nation state. Try doing that in the middle east, you can't! Afaik there is no way to become a naturalised citizen of UAE, Saudi, Qatar and so on.

Interesting point on Jordan as well. When Jordan ruled the West Bank from 1948-1967 they offered nothing like asylum status nor a path to citizenship to Palestinian refugees. Lebanon similar.

On the main point, yes they could do more, a lot more given that culturally they have more in common with each other than most countries in Europe.

crockholm

And with Turkey playing a destabilizing role in the Syrian war-ought they not take at least 90% of the burden?

speedboatchase

It's easier to just poke the finger at non-Muslims in the West. Here's Al Jazeera's agenda in full view: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/04/mediterranean-graveyard-european-values-150422050428476.html

"While the average citizen remained glued for weeks in front of his television screen after the crashes of a handful of airplanes over the last two years which monopolised the headlines of every news organisation, the weekly drowning of anonymous non-white migrants attempting to peacefully cross borders under the abuse of criminal smugglers has only been met with silence and unease."

"Instead of providing ambitious answers to conflicts destabilising security in its neighbourhood, the EU has lost its very soul.

"Migrant populations could be the very breath of liberal and democratic aspirations that could pull the EU away from the stale xenophobia promoted by its growing extreme right parties."

Absolute shocking article.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

It's easier to just poke the finger at non-Muslims in the West. Here's Al Jazeera's agenda in full view:

Not true, its an opinion piece by this guy:

Remi Piet

Remi Piet is assistant professor of public policy, diplomacy and international political economy at Qatar University.

They even have a disclaimer at the bottom of it, and also at the top it clearly state opinion.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

These sort of opinion pieces are fairly common, and all sorts are on there saying all sorts of stuff.

speedboatchase wrote: »

Absolute shocking article.

Absolutely shocking that you claimed it was the editorial position of Al Jazeera.

rgossip30

I think the Americans are more responsible for what has developed in the Middle East .They spearheaded the fall of Saddam Hussein and installed a puppet government that could not rule Iraq. The began a campaign to defeat Basher in Sryia and made the government weaker which made IS stronger . In conclusion it takes a hard man to rule in the middle east not softly softly politicians like we are used to.
I fail to see why Europe is getting the blame ?? The Irish response is that we are committed to African countries with lesser known conflicts . We are all familiar which countries those are.

jank

This whole blame the US or the West for the current state of the Middle East is an easy but ultimately false narrative. In fact it is the retraction of Western and US power over the last number of years that has led to the Arab spring, ISIS and smaller conflicts like Yeman and Libya all over the place.

One wonders were they right to sponsor strong men to rule the middle east and keep a lid on the violence rather than the current hodge podge system of groups all scrambling for power and influence. Never mind people ignoring the actual elephant in the room, which is centuries old religious conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslim that has nothing what so ever to do with the West.

jank

speedboatchase wrote: »

It's easier to just poke the finger at non-Muslims in the West. Here's Al Jazeera's agenda in full view: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/04/mediterranean-graveyard-european-values-150422050428476.html

"While the average citizen remained glued for weeks in front of his television screen after the crashes of a handful of airplanes over the last two years which monopolised the headlines of every news organisation, the weekly drowning of anonymous non-white migrants attempting to peacefully cross borders under the abuse of criminal smugglers has only been met with silence and unease."

"Instead of providing ambitious answers to conflicts destabilising security in its neighbourhood, the EU has lost its very soul.

"Migrant populations could be the very breath of liberal and democratic aspirations that could pull the EU away from the stale xenophobia promoted by its growing extreme right parties."

Absolute shocking article.

That piece is like a piece from the Onion its so bad. I am sure the good professor will be asking the Qatari government with their own stellar records on immigration and labour rights (see world cup stadium building 2022) to open their own borders to the many Africans trying to get to Europe. He should look far far closer to home if he is going to be throwing stones regards compassion and fairness. Using this as yet another stick to beat the west with is tbh disgusting hypocrisy.

The Corinthian

speedboatchase wrote: »

"Migrant populations could be the very breath of liberal and democratic aspirations that could pull the EU away from the stale xenophobia promoted by its growing extreme right parties."

Pity that much of that breath then seems to be exhaled as radicalized IS volunteers.

johnnyskeleton

typhusandswans wrote: »

... they are run by strongmen and tyrants and dictators who are answerable to nobody....
The only actions these animals understand...

MOD: I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were referring to the leaders as animals rather than whole countries of people, given that it is your first post. Please read the charter of the forum before you post any further.

As regards your point generally, I don't think you can compare the governments of Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon etc as all being the same. There may be certain similarities, but they have very different political and legal systems. For example, the powers of King Abdullah II of Jordan and the Al-Saud family of Saudi Arabia are vastly different, even though both are monarchs.

It is also very unfortunate that in Syria, for example, moves towards democracy left them vulnerable to rebellion and civil war. But I don't think looking at Middle Eastern Countries in 2015 is necessarily reflective of the past or future rule of those countries.

hfallada

Nearly a quarter of Lebanon's population is now Syrian Refugees. Imagine having to deal with over 1 million coming to Ireland (similar population size) and trying to manage them properly.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122

I do think Saudi Arabia should take Syrian Refugees. They are basically beside each other and Saudi with its massive cash reserves can support them. With Saudi Arabia I think is too preoccupied with controlling its people and preventing its own civil war from breaking out(eg all the weapons and planes they buying in recent years). Syrians are probably too liberal for the restricted nature of Saudi Arabia. Where as Lebanon is considered a very liberal country in the middle east(womens rights are good)

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486976.html

IrishTrajan

speedboatchase wrote: »

"While the average citizen remained glued for weeks in front of his television screen after the crashes of a handful of airplanes over the last two years which monopolised the headlines of every news organisation, the weekly drowning of anonymous non-white migrants attempting to peacefully cross borders under the abuse of criminal smugglers has only been met with silence and unease."

People not caring about criminals suffering the repercussions of their actions? How outrageous!

speedboatchase wrote: »

"Migrant populations could be the very breath of liberal and democratic aspirations that could pull the EU away from the stale xenophobia promoted by its growing extreme right parties."

Idealism, liberalism and not a whole lot else. When immigrants come to your country and refuse to integrate, when groups kill satirists and Jews for mocking your religion (which is their job), when you find different ethnic Islamic groups fighting (Kurds and Turks in Germany, for instance), when, rather than moderating themselves and integrating, instead wanting us to change and implement Sharia Law, you tend to find groups of people who get fed up.

Nobody is saying we should shoot the boats, nobody is saying they can't live here. Everyone has a right to live here, so long as they adapt to our way of life. The groups of people I hate are the ones who come here illegally, take from the system and then complain that it isn't like back home and begrudge us for not being more "tolerant" and for not pandering to them.

I have Syrian friends, I have Pakistani and Iranian friends, I know Turks and I know Brazilians, Americans and Chinese. I have absolutely no problem with them living here and working here. I have absolutely no problem with them being Islamic, or Christian, or Buddhist so long as they aren't in the streets calling for adulterers to be stoned to death.

The West is the West. If immigrants want Sharia Law, they should move to somewhere that has Sharia Law, instead of trying to foist it upon everyone around them.



I went on a bit of a rant, yes.

rgossip30

What is wrong with destroying the boats of illegal traffickers ? Twee Higgins regards the suggestion as ' monstrous ' .I assume he realises that the migrants would not be in the boats when they are destroyed.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

This whole blame the US or the West for the current state of the Middle East is an easy but ultimately false narrative.

It’s hardly a coincidence that two of the most unstable, terrorist-laden regions of the planet happen to be in countries invaded by the UK/US in the recent past – both operations have clearly had disastrous consequences.

Son Of A Vidic

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Should Muslim Countries take more responsibility for migrants?

Perhaps the western nations who bombed Libya and turned it into a destabilised fiefdom of warring clans. Should now step up and show the same level of enthusiasm to resolve the crisis, that they demonstrated during their bombing spree.

IrishTrajan

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s hardly a coincidence that two of the most unstable, terrorist-laden regions of the planet happen to be in countries invaded by the UK/US in the recent past – both operations have clearly had disastrous consequences.

Yes, I forgot NATO invaded northern Nigeria.

Yes, the West fecked up in their invasion of Iraq and the aftermath (totally disbanding the Iraqi military was a very stupid mistake, especially considering most of the strategists and commanders of ISIS and its affiliate groups are ex-Ba'athist commanders), but to blame it solely on the West is nonsensical.

Britain already donates a lot of money to refugee camps (in the region of €10.8bn) which makes them the second largest contributor. Even the countries taking in the refugees spend significantly less. Turkey, for example, has had a greater affect on Syria and Iraq's instability but has only spent €4bn or so.

Of course the West made mistakes, but should we import millions of people because of those mistakes, stressing our infrastructure (France, Italy, Germany and such are already suffering under the burden of migrants) so that everyone suffers and our standard of living goes down?

And what was the alternative to invading? Letting Saddam stay in power? The dude killed 180,000 of his own civilians during the Al-Anfal Campaign, and invaded Iran (causing 200,000+ military casualties, plus another 100,000 civilian) and Kuwait. He openly said he had WMDs, why would the West not take him at face value?

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Perhaps the western nations who bombed Libya and turned it into a destabilised fiefdom of warring clans. Should now step up and show the same level of enthusiasm to resolve the crisis, that they demonstrated during their bombing spree.

Tell me, how do we resolve the crisis? Economic support? Political support? Military interventionism? If interventionism, do we supply non-lethal equipment? Do we supply arms? Do we carry out airstrikes (which the Egyptians already do)? Do we send in special forces teams, or do we deploy conventional forces? Is it going to be a light foot-print of a few thousand, or a fully mobilized military in the tens of thousands? Are we going to act in a support role, with logistics support? Are we going to provide trainers? What about combat troops?

Which side do we choose? The Egyptian backed Government, or the Turkish backed Government? Egypt is the military power in North Africa, with enough airpower to flatten most rivals, but Turkey is a NATO member. Do we choose Turkey-backed Government, the weaker one, or do we side with Egypt's backed stronger Government (which is what humanitarian military-intervention would recommend)?

I'm quite sure if the US had sent in combat troops, you'd criticize them for doing so. The West is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't, it seems.

ZeroThreat

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, I forgot NATO invaded northern Nigeria.

Yes, the West fecked up in their invasion of Iraq and the aftermath (totally disbanding the Iraqi military was a very stupid mistake, especially considering most of the strategists and commanders of ISIS and its affiliate groups are ex-Ba'athist commanders), but to blame it solely on the West is nonsensical.

Britain already donates a lot of money to refugee camps (in the region of €10.8bn) which makes them the second largest contributor. Even the countries taking in the refugees spend significantly less. Turkey, for example, has had a greater affect on Syria and Iraq's instability but has only spent €4bn or so.

Of course the West made mistakes, but should we import millions of people because of those mistakes, stressing our infrastructure (France, Italy, Germany and such are already suffering under the burden of migrants) so that everyone suffers and our standard of living goes down?

And what was the alternative to invading? Letting Saddam stay in power? The dude killed 180,000 of his own civilians during the Al-Anfal Campaign, and invaded Iran (causing 200,000+ military casualties, plus another 100,000 civilian) and Kuwait. He openly said he had WMDs, why would the West not take him at face value?



Tell me, how do we resolve the crisis? Economic support? Political support? Military interventionism? If interventionism, do we supply non-lethal equipment? Do we supply arms? Do we carry out airstrikes (which the Egyptians already do)? Do we send in special forces teams, or do we deploy conventional forces? Is it going to be a light foot-print of a few thousand, or a fully mobilized military in the tens of thousands? Are we going to act in a support role, with logistics support? Are we going to provide trainers? What about combat troops?

Which side do we choose? The Egyptian backed Government, or the Turkish backed Government? Egypt is the military power in North Africa, with enough airpower to flatten most rivals, but Turkey is a NATO member. Do we choose Turkey-backed Government, the weaker one, or do we side with Egypt's backed stronger Government (which is what humanitarian military-intervention would recommend)?

I'm quite sure if the US had sent in combat troops, you'd criticize them for doing so. The West is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't, it seems.

The invasion of Iran was pretty much backed & endorsed by the US, UK and other western powers at the time.

old_aussie

If there's a problem in the Middle East,(AND there are plenty of problems in the Middle East and they all seem to stem from tribal ethnic religious groups) and these people that want to migrate to Europe are therefore part of that problem in the middle east.

Why not make them stay in the ME and make the ME fix the problems, instead of letting these people migrate to Europe, then that part of the problem is then in Europe.

Keep it in the Middle East

IrishTrajan

ZeroThreat wrote: »

The invasion of Iran was pretty much backed & endorsed by the US, UK and other western powers at the time.

Yes, in order to counter Iran, who had kidnapped 66 diplomats for well over a year. And Iran openly called for a Shia overthrow of their neighbours. Both sides were belligerent, and letting Saddam exhaust himself fighting the Iranians was a win-win scenario.

How does that even detract from my point that Saddam was an insane dictator that needed to be taken out?

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

If there's a problem in the Middle East,(AND there are plenty of problems in the Middle East and they all seem to stem from tribal ethnic religious groups) and these people that want to migrate to Europe are therefore part of that problem in the middle east.

Why not make them stay in the ME and make the ME fix the problems, instead of letting these people migrate to Europe, then that part of the problem is then in Europe.

Keep it in the Middle East

Do you know how many refugees are already in the area? Perhaps you might do some research on the subject.

Do explain please what you mean by "part of the problem is then in Europe".

Irishtrajan wrote:

Yes, in order to counter Iran, who had kidnapped 66 diplomats for well over a
year.

Wrong time period.

Irishtrajan wrote:

Both sides were belligerent, and letting Saddam exhaust himself fighting the
Iranians was a win-win scenario.

Saddam was encouraged to invade. He was given aid to do so, and further aid to avoid defeat when the Iranians managed to re-organise. As he was a US ally at the time there was no question of a "win-win" scenario.

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

Wrong time period.

Saddam was encouraged to invade. He was given aid to do so, and further aid to avoid defeat when the Iranians managed to re-organise. As he was a US ally at the time there was no question of a "win-win" scenario.

It is not at all the wrong time period. The Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979. The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. To invade Iran? Of course he was aided. The US wanted to bleed both sides dry.

And the Taliban were US allies during the Afghan-Soviet War, yet the Americans still took them out. Is Saddam's links to the US supposed to prove something, other than the US needed him gone?

Once again, none of that detracts from my point. Saddam was a maniacal, genocidal bastard and the U.S. were right to take him out.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s hardly a coincidence that two of the most unstable, terrorist-laden regions of the planet happen to be in countries invaded by the UK/US in the recent past – both operations have clearly had disastrous consequences.

Causation does not equal correlation. You are ignoring all the other externalities that make the Middle East the place it is. It lazy history to say tis the fault of the US and the UK, especially when the ottoman empire ruled over this part of the world for most of 500 years.

Sunni and Shia have been going at it for centuries with no help needed from the West. The region in many ways is ungovernable in the western sense of a nation state of common values and morals. Look at Egypt? A country that should be successful, on the cross roads of the world. Yet only the military can hold the place together and prevent it from exploding. Syria, no western intervention, yet over 160,000 dead due tribalism and religion.

By the way, Islamic fascism and Islamic terrorism existed way before the invasion of Iraq.

jank

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It is not at all the wrong time period. The Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979. The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. To invade Iran? Of course he was aided. The US wanted to bleed both sides dry.

And the Taliban were US allies during the Afghan-Soviet War, yet the Americans still took them out. Is Saddam's links to the US supposed to prove something, other than the US needed him gone?

Once again, none of that detracts from my point. Saddam was a maniacal, genocidal bastard and the U.S. were right to take him out.

Correct. People were critising the West and especially the US for supporting and aiding strong men like Saddam and Mubarak for decades. These strongmen kept some sense of order. Now that the US has stepped back from this role and are no longer backing Mubarak and they took Saddam out.... well its chaos. Blame the US again for something something something...

At some stage, these countries will have to take responsibility for their actions. I don't see Japan, Vietnam or South Korea engaged in tribal warfare at present. That region seems to be moving forward, the ME seems to be intent on living like its the middle ages.

Dannyboy83

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, I forgot NATO invaded northern Nigeria.
.

Don't forget Western China either, suffering terrorist attacks by the uighurs who have ties to Isis

Sweden fired an entire recruitment centre last year as they were recruiting jihadists

jank

jank wrote: »

One wonders were they right to sponsor strong men to rule the middle east and keep a lid on the violence rather than the current hodge podge system of groups all scrambling for power and influence.

Support for the so-called 'arab spring' will be seen as a major blunder by the western powers.

Without a doubt the world is a much less safe place, both for the West and for the populations in the affected countries.

The old policy of allowing a strong dictator to stay in power but neutering his excesses was certainly effective in Libya and Syria. Both countries are now basket cases with huge international implications.

The lesson is that 'democracy' is not always the best solution. Some societies are simply not prepared to operate a democracy and it will fail. Transition to democracy from a dictatorship without any democratic traditions is a process that takes many years and requires the support (perhaps unwitting) of the incumbent dictator.

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It is not at all the wrong time period. The Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979. The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. To invade Iran? Of course he was aided. The US wanted to bleed both sides dry.

Theres no evidence they wanted to "bleed both sides dry"

IrishTrajan wrote:

And the Taliban were US allies during the Afghan-Soviet War, yet the Americans
still took them out.

Many years down the road for well known reasons.

IrishTrajan wrote:

Is Saddam's links to the US supposed to prove something, other than the US needed him gone?

He was a US ally at one stage.

"wanted him gone".

djpbarry

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, the West fecked up in their invasion of Iraq and the aftermath (totally disbanding the Iraqi military was a very stupid mistake, especially considering most of the strategists and commanders of ISIS and its affiliate groups are ex-Ba'athist commanders), but to blame it solely on the West is nonsensical.

I’m not blaming it solely on “The West”, I’m simply pointing out that “The West” has to accept responsibility for its actions.

And of course, by “The West”, we really mean “The US and the UK”.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Of course the West made mistakes, but should we import millions of people because of those mistakes, stressing our infrastructure (France, Italy, Germany and such are already suffering under the burden of migrants) so that everyone suffers and our standard of living goes down?

Ignoring for a moment that you’re obviously exaggerating, my answer is an unequivocal yes, we should do what we can to help. However, I would place a greater share of that responsibility at the feet of the UK, who played a much more active role in destabilizing the region than the rest of Europe.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Saddam was a maniacal, genocidal bastard…

…that the US was only too happy to support when it suited them.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Causation does not equal correlation. You are ignoring all the other externalities that make the Middle East the place it is. It lazy history to say tis the fault of the US and the UK...

Once again, I’m not saying the state of the Middle East is entirely the fault of the US/UK, but it’s ridiculous to say they haven’t played a role in recent history.

jank wrote: »

People were critising the West and especially the US for supporting and aiding strong men like Saddam and Mubarak for decades. These strongmen kept some sense of order. Now that the US has stepped back from this role and are no longer backing Mubarak and they took Saddam out.... well its chaos. Blame the US again for something something something...

Well, yeah. We should blame the US for lending their support to questionable regimes when it suits them, then “removing” those regimes at a later date. I mean, how is that going to stabilize anything?

jank wrote: »

At some stage, these countries will have to take responsibility for their actions. I don't see Japan, Vietnam or South Korea engaged in tribal warfare at present. That region seems to be moving forward…

But only after the US tried to “fix” it.

IrishTrajan

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not blaming it solely on “The West”, I’m simply pointing out that “The West” has to accept responsibility for its actions.

And of course, by “The West”, we really mean “The US and the UK”.

Ignoring for a moment that you’re obviously exaggerating, my answer is an unequivocal yes, we should do what we can to help. However, I would place a greater share of that responsibility at the feet of the UK, who played a much more active role in destabilizing the region than the rest of Europe.
…that the US was only too happy to support when it suited them.

Britain has contributed nearly €11bn to refugee camps. You want them to import the refugees instead, resulting in infrastructural strain? We already have UKIP rising in prominence, and you want them to import more migrants? I'm sorry, but that is entirely unfeasible. There comes a point when humanitarian/liberalist ideals become entirely unworkable, and wanting the West (the West means all of us, because once those migrants have children, their kids are British/European citizens and free to move as they please) to play the hero to everyone is one of those times.

Germany, France and Italy are already cracking under the strain, as seen by them bringing forth and supporting a motion to force Member States to take in "quotas" of asylum seekers, in order to alleviate the burden on them.

Where do we draw the line? Is it a fixed number of years where we can be considered the root cause and have to pay for it? 20 years ago? 50? Where do we draw the line as to who qualifies? Should we have to take in all the Libyans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Nigerians because "well, some people's ancestors screwed you over, and since we're all part of the EU now"?

Turkey, a power who screwed that region up just as badly during their 400-500 year reign as the Ottoman Empire, are only contributing around half of what Britain is, despite them being the ones allowing Jihadis to cross the Syrian/Iraqi borders, supplying arms to rebel fighters. Do we have to take in the refugees that they caused, or do we only take in ones displaced from our own direct actions?